ArticleOpen veterinary journal2024
Comparative efficacy of difloxacin and nano-emulsion difloxacin as antibacterial agents against
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Avian salmonellosis is a group of diseases caused by bacteria from the genus Salmonella with a negative impact on poultry, particularly chickens. In addition, salmonellosis is a global food-borne infection. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of nano-emulsion difloxacin (NED) and commercial difloxacin (CD) water supplement on broiler's growth, feed intake, and body weight, weight gain, growth rate, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality rate (MR). The antibiotic sensitivity was determined both Methods: 1500 one-day of age chicks were grouped into five groups as follows: group 1 (G1) control negative group, G2 control positive group (infected and not treated), G3 (infected and treated with CD, and G4 and G5 (infected and treated with NED at different doses). Samples, including the intestine, liver, and spleen were collected. Agar well diffusion test and minimum inhibitory concentrations were adopted. Histopathological lesions on different tissues were studied. During 35 days of the experiment, the feed intake, growth rate, growth gain, FCR, and MR were recorded daily. In addition, a variety of analytical techniques including transmission electron microscopic analysis, dynamic light scattering, UV-visible spectroscopy, and zeta-potential analysis were applied to characterize NED. Results: The agar well diffusion test indicated that NED was Conclusion: Treatment of broiler's drinking water with NED at doses of 0.5 and 1 ml instead of pure CD was able to enforce a new perspective, antibacterial efficacy, enhancing the productive performance, and reducing the MRs of broilers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.